[QUOTE=petrw1;296084]Ok, now I'm confused. I just noticed he is using GPUto72.:shock:
He has so far completed 1 DC-TF and 34 LL-TF.
That's not just in the last day is it?[/QUOTE]
Since I may be the "he" you are talking about, I thought I might reply.

First of all, I had been under the impression that all contributors to GIMPS were valued, whether they were large or small. So, I'm not sure why this matters.

But since you ask, petrw, this is a recent 28-hour sample of my direct PrimeNet contributions. [None of these assignments were obtained from GPUto72.]

[CODE]Manual testing 54738163 NF 2012-04-10 12:39 no factor for M54738163 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7371
Manual testing 54815989 NF 2012-04-10 12:39 no factor for M54815989 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7247
Manual testing 54711793 NF 2012-04-10 12:39 no factor for M54711793 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7414
Manual testing 54588557 NF 2012-04-10 12:39 no factor for M54588557 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7611
Manual testing 55102759 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M55102759 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6793
Manual testing 55089497 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M55089497 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6814
Manual testing 55078277 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M55078277 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6832
Manual testing 55102741 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M55102741 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6793
Manual testing 55083701 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M55083701 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6823
Manual testing 54855301 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M54855301 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7185
Manual testing 54854497 NF 2012-04-10 11:02 no factor for M54854497 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7186
Manual testing 61193879 NF 2012-04-10 07:50 no factor for M61193879 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9539
Manual testing 61199093 NF 2012-04-10 07:50 no factor for M61199093 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9537
Manual testing 61197839 NF 2012-04-10 07:50 no factor for M61197839 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9537
Manual testing 61178771 NF 2012-04-10 07:50 no factor for M61178771 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9543
Manual testing 55082593 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M55082593 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6825
Manual testing 55049237 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M55049237 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6878
Manual testing 55034867 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M55034867 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6900
Manual testing 55014049 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M55014049 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6933
Manual testing 54566471 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M54566471 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7646
Manual testing 55081289 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M55081289 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6827
Manual testing 54849997 NF 2012-04-10 06:59 no factor for M54849997 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7193
Manual testing 49787029 C 2012-04-10 06:51 a912aacf8d04c3__ 105.5208
Manual testing 55019477 NF 2012-04-10 03:55 no factor for M55019477 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6925
Manual testing 54964529 NF 2012-04-10 03:55 no factor for M54964529 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7012
Manual testing 55049387 NF 2012-04-10 03:55 no factor for M55049387 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6878
Manual testing 54833197 NF 2012-04-10 03:55 no factor for M54833197 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7220
Manual testing 55004603 NF 2012-04-10 01:29 no factor for M55004603 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6948
Manual testing 54869831 NF 2012-04-10 01:29 no factor for M54869831 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7162
Manual testing 54854537 NF 2012-04-10 01:29 no factor for M54854537 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7186
Manual testing 55042817 NF 2012-04-10 01:28 no factor for M55042817 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6888
Manual testing 54786341 NF 2012-04-10 01:28 no factor for M54786341 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7295
Manual testing 61178009 NF 2012-04-09 22:40 no factor for M61178009 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 61181711 NF 2012-04-09 22:40 no factor for M61181711 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9542
Manual testing 61174051 NF 2012-04-09 22:40 no factor for M61174051 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9545
Manual testing 61177643 NF 2012-04-09 22:40 no factor for M61177643 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 54852869 NF 2012-04-09 22:37 no factor for M54852869 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7189
Manual testing 55032737 NF 2012-04-09 22:37 no factor for M55032737 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6904
Manual testing 54781409 NF 2012-04-09 22:37 no factor for M54781409 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7302
Manual testing 54833239 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54833239 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7220
Manual testing 54833131 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54833131 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7220
Manual testing 54794617 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54794617 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7281
Manual testing 55017073 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M55017073 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6929
Manual testing 55009709 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M55009709 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6940
Manual testing 54736081 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54736081 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7375
Manual testing 54735487 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54735487 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7376
Manual testing 54711301 NF 2012-04-09 20:55 no factor for M54711301 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7414
Manual testing 54786311 NF 2012-04-09 13:27 no factor for M54786311 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7295
Manual testing 54998473 NF 2012-04-09 13:27 no factor for M54998473 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.6958
Manual testing 54686647 NF 2012-04-09 13:27 no factor for M54686647 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7454
Manual testing 54739403 NF 2012-04-09 11:15 no factor for M54739403 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7369
Manual testing 61176767 NF 2012-04-09 09:41 no factor for M61176767 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 61174037 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61174037 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9545
Manual testing 61173577 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61173577 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9545
Manual testing 61178989 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61178989 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9543
Manual testing 61199023 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61199023 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9537
Manual testing 61177117 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61177117 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 61193789 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61193789 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9539
Manual testing 61227763 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61227763 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9528
Manual testing 61173979 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61173979 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9545
Manual testing 61177157 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61177157 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 61180541 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61180541 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9543
Manual testing 61191049 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61191049 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9539
Manual testing 61176769 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61176769 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9544
Manual testing 61179023 NF 2012-04-09 09:21 no factor for M61179023 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.18...] 1.9543
Manual testing 54736109 NF 2012-04-09 09:18 no factor for M54736109 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18...] 8.7375

523.1508
[/CODE]

Well, at least we know it's possible to get fully TFd LL assignments :smile:

[QUOTE=rcv;296095]Since I may be the "he" you are talking about, I thought I might reply.... [None of these assignments were obtained from GPUto72.]

[CODE]... [mfaktc 0.18...]
... [mfaktc 0.18...] [/CODE][/QUOTE]
This "doesn't compute". What's the size of the chip on your shoulder, dude?
GPU72 was created to help people with GPUs to get reasonable assignments that otherwise usually went straight to LL with less than desired/now-possible/ TF done. The point of all of your fight for freedom was ... to get them from PrimeNet to do mfaktc?? now, that's funny.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;295907]I would again like to point out on behalf of BDot, Jerry, myself, and all of the other AMD owners that AMD's are around 10-15% faster going to 70 and below than to 71 and 72 due to how the optimal kernel is constructed.

I won't click the slow card button, and I will grab some 72's if the project thinks that is what is better, but I just hope you have this in your mind as a factor to think about. The performance drop is very significant for us above 70.[/QUOTE]

Sorry there's a slight delay in getting the next preview to you guys (AMD owners), but it will contain some remedy. At least on my HD5770, a new kernel's speed is about in the middle between the fast "up-to-70" and the next slower kernel. And it is good for up to 2^73 - our usual workload should be covered by this one. And it holds my great hope for significantly improving Cayman's performance. I'll send it to you later today (if nothing changes my plans, again).

Chalsall, thanks for the "slow card" option, I also have one of those CC1.2 nvidia cards that right now chews on one of the 2^71 -> 2^72 assignments at about 66 secs per class (>17hrs total) ...

[QUOTE=Batalov;296097]This "doesn't compute". What's the size of the chip on your shoulder, dude?
GPU72 was created to help people with GPUs to get reasonable assignments that otherwise usually went straight to LL with less than desired/now-possible/ TF done. The point of all of your fight for freedom was ... to get them from PrimeNet to do mfaktc?? now, that's funny.[/QUOTE]

What a pyrrhic victory as well, between nucleon, xyzzy and me, those released exponents would have taken 24 hours to complete. He's also upgraded, as a single 560 could not output the ~335GHzD/day that printout shows, which was a nice touch, claiming '28 hours of work' when it should be obvious that counting work completed prior to that time frame does not count(Maybe he expects us to belive he could actually complete a 49M LL in 21 hours, when a 580 would take over 44 hours).

There are phrases that aptly apply to his distrust of GPU72: Never assume malice when ignorance will suffice and Get off your high horse. challsall is obviously not an expert web designer, so errors are possible, but making a mountain out of a molehill? Relax. The potential 'compromise' of information here is rather small, it's not like he has credit card information on the site, plus I must ask, once notified of the problem, wasn't it taken care of in a timely fashion?

Not to mention that primenet strikes me as a zillion times more insecure than gpu272.

[QUOTE=rcv;296095]Since I may be the "he" you are talking about, I thought I might reply.[/QUOTE]

You are "he". My surprise came from noticing that you were already on GPUto72 though I had the impression that you were opposed to the effort or need to sign up to GPUto72.

[QUOTE]First of all, I had been under the impression that all contributors to GIMPS were valued, whether they were large or small. So, I'm not sure why this matters.[/QUOTE]

And what would make you imply they are not?
You are obviously contributing a lot more than I am and I have NEVER felt under valued.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;296125]Not to mention that primenet strikes me as a zillion times more insecure than gpu272.[/QUOTE]

I had promised to speak to this "security exposure" rcv discovered, and keeps bringing up...

I made a mistake on the Sign Up form. The Perl/Pseudo code was:

[CODE]my ($UN, $PW, $PWC, $EMail) = ("", "", "", "");

if ($ENV{'REQUEST_METHOD'} eq "POST") {
[COLOR="Red"][Extract $UN, $PW, $PWC, $EMail from POST object][/COLOR]

[COLOR="Red"][Do sanity checks on submitted data][/COLOR]

if ($Err eq "") {
[Insert user into database with unconfirmed state]
[EMail user with a link to activate account]
exit;
}
}

[COLOR="Red"][Render form with the $UN, $PW, $PWC and $EMail fields if an error occured
(i.e. e-mail address not correct format, $PW and $PWC (confirm) don't match,
Username already in use, $PW too short, etc.)][/COLOR][/CODE]

The bug rcv discovered (and, to his credit, reported to me) was that because this code is running under mod_perl, the $UN, $PW, $PWC and $EMail variables are only initiated when the code is run for the first time under each Apache server context, not every time the code is run.

Thus, there was a small temporal window after someone has signed up [B][I][U]for the first time[/U][/I][/B] when these variables would be exposed to another user if they happened to visit the Sign Up page shortly after, and happened to be being served by the same server context as the new user.

Immediately after rcv brought this to my attention I fixed the code and e-mailed the new user explaining what had happened.

As it has always said on the sign-up form, the passwords submitted are one-way encrypted before being stored. The only way someone could extract someone else's password is if they had access to their web-browser, or "sniffed the wire" in between the client's browser and my server.

Like bcp19 said, I think this is a bit of a molehill being turned into a mountain. But, at the same time, I do appreciate having this very embarrassing bug pointed out to me, as I expect to use the framework I've built for GPU72 for other projects, and it did mean my system broke the stated privacy policy.

:chalsall:

:batalov:[ATTACH]7889[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;296195]:chalsall:[/QUOTE]

Wow. I'm humbled. Truly.

Thanks!!! :smile: